UKC

In a bid to protect others from passive smoking, children mainly. You'd hope that parental common sense would prevail on this one.

Is this a step too far? Why not just go the whole hog and ban smoking all together (I know it'll never happen!). What happened to the right to make your own decisions. Grrr.

I don't smoke, I hate smoking but I am an ex smoker. This is about rights.

Well, what do you think?

In reply to waterbaby:

Sadly parental common sense does not prevail, and not only with smoking.

In reply to waterbaby:

Some of us, probably a majority several decades ago, never envisioned the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent withering away of the Arms race so nothing is impossible and although it does seem unlikely that smoking will ever vanish completely I doubt many would take the trouble to grow their own if the supply system was to vanish for some reason.

In reply to Rampikino:

Too true. I got very angry the other day driving home from work. The car in front of me had three young girls in the back and what I presume was dad driving and mum in the passenger seat. None of them had their seatbelt on.

In reply to waterbaby:

The right for a parent to kill a kid...worth protecting??

The fact that this has to even be considered shows how ignorant these people are.

In reply to IainRUK:

But they're not recommending a ban on smoking in cars with children inside, they want to ban smoking in cars full-stop. Do you not think that's a bit intrusive on people who want to smoke on their own in their car, hurting nobody but themselves.

They say that restricting it to just when children or just when others are in the car would not be practical. If you have to pull them over to give them the fine surely you have the opportunity to see if there are children in there or not.

In reply to waterbaby:
it is illegal to eat, drink or use a phone while driving but smoking is ok... Figure that one out.

In reply to waterbaby: The amount of young Mums I see in town with a cigarette stickng out their gobs, hanging over their wee designer babies in Prams, grrrrrr. I'd have the f.....s done for child abuse.

In reply to richparry:





Its unbelievable, considering the affects smoking has on the body.

In reply to waterbaby:

I think this thread is going to split along the usual lines with the non-smokers and anti-smokers stating that no smoking should be permitted anywhere, ever, helped by the Daily Mail readers who will state that one cigarette in a car that might, years hence, be used for transporting a child, or even might be driven past a child, should be banned "for the sake of the children".

Gawd only knows what the anti-smoking Daily Mail readers will put. I suspect their vitriol will be along shortly.

For what its worth, my view is that there's a lot of things people do in cars which remove their attention from the road. Screaming kids in the back is probably No. 1 by a fair margin, rummaging around in the glovebox for a CD has got to be up there too, as is trying to unpack and eat a sandwich. Trying to follow a (paper) map is dangerous too but people do that all the time.

Smoking I'd put way down the list at about the level of ejecting one Cd and putting in another, but smoking is an easy target and certain pressure groups apear to want to torment smokers for sport. And before anyone goes on about dropping a lighted fag, its frankly vanishingly rare. In half-a-million miles of driving I've never dropped a lit fag anywhere else than the ashtray. And no, I don't chuck tab ends out the window.

Even so, I'd say that dropping a lit fag is a lot less distracting than little johnny projectile vomiting in the back.

As to the smoking-in-a-car-with-kids? Tricky. I'd love to believe that all parents wouldn't (but I'd be wrong!), but then if you are the kind of parents who would light up in the car with their children then a bit of passive smoking is probably also way down the list of ills you are inflicting on them.

Hence storm-in-a-teacup in my opinion.

In reply to trouserburp: Yeah I'd just make it with kids, but can't you always see if a kid is in a car. Just simpler to ban smoking. I've never udnerstood why they banned the use of phones and not smoking in cars anyway. For me there are 2 reasons to ban.

TBH smokers have brought this on themselves. It was their selfish smoking in resturants in enclosed spaces which brought the ban in.

In reply to John_Hat: A poor answer. Responding to anyone who disagrees as a 'Daily Mail reader' is beneath you John.

In reply to waterbaby:

a ban on smoking in cars sounds like somthing which will be impossible to enforce and as such seems a bit pointless.

Just imagine the uproar when someone is fined for smoking in his own car(Sutty maybe which he was driving alone, the "why dont they go catch some real criminals" would see no end.

In reply to waterbaby:
you're not allowed to use a phone in the car because it means you dont have both hands on the wheel, when you're smoking, ok you have your hands on the wheel more but not all the time, so for that reason i think it should be banned, unless someone comes up with a hands free kit for it

but also, I ride a motorbike, and its bad enough following lorries with dodgy exhaust forcing you to breath in the crap they pump out, but fag smoke is just a million times worse, makes me want to wretch - but i am an ex-smoker so that might be why.

In reply to waterbaby: I'm also rather fond of the auld throwing a lighted Ciggie out of a car window when I'm out cycling. Its a nice wee touch and very considerate.

In reply to IainRUK:

Nein, I said that the thread would split , with one side being those that disliked smoking (as in your case) and Daily Mail readers who like to be told what to think. I didn't say that the two sets of folk were the same, as they clearly are not, though they may be saying the same thing.

I also didn't say I disagreed with them, either. Personally, as I said, I think that smoking in cars with kids is a bad idea.

In reply to richparry:

I've always wondered about that one.

What would you rather drop in your lap in a moment of crisis? A half-eaten sarnie, bottle of water or a lit cigarette?

In reply to John_Hat: Sounds like your problem is with the Mail and not smokers. Maybe start your own thread on the subject?

In reply to waterbaby:

Incidentally, they banned using mobile phones in vehicles, but that doesn't seem to have stopped it - there are still plenty of people driving around chatting away.

In reply to Ian Black:

Oh, I've got a problem with the Mail all right. Will happily admit that. At least the rest of the tabloids don't try and behave like newspapers, whereas the Mail regards whipping up hate to be its sole purpose in life. Unfortunately the easily-led people who read it oft swallow the vitriol and spout it back as if its their own views.

A vicar friend of mine gave me the term "Sheeple", a combination of "Sheep" and "People". She was also of the view that there's too much hate in the world as it is, a view with which I heartily concur.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

All laws are broken at some time, but it reduces the incidence and gives the law an a right to pull people up about it

In reply to John_Hat:






There is a lot of hate and intollerance in society, and all the tabloids try and influence the naive. More so with regards to political persuasion. Its healthy to read a diverse range of media and draw ones own conclusions.

In reply to waterbaby:

If smoking was banned then where would the government go in search of lost tax revenue?

I hate smoking and feel that smokers are ignorant, self-centred and antisocial people who do not care when or where they light up.

We've got huge No Smoking signs, which are one meter square put up outside main entrances at the local hospital. Now these things can probably be seen quite clearly from half a mile away but, as I said, these selfish gits blatantly do not care about the signs, their health, my health or the health of the poor souls inside the building doors.

Just because a smoker has to smoke outside, do they have to stand so close to the door of the building that they have just left?

Personally I'd ban smoking today.

In reply to waterbaby: Face it walking through some somke from a smoker is going to do as much damage to you as walking past someone on their mobile. I can see a smoking in cars ban comming in but only so the police have something to do, its too much like work trying to catch a real criminal, far easier to just pull someone over for having a fag or talking on the phone.
Cigs will never be banned tho, as a prevous poster says where would the gov. get their money from!? same as petrol, they "really" want to find an alternative fuel source so they can stop taxing us poor civy's so heavily! I'm a non smoker Btw

In reply to paddi-8764:


See i told you so.

I think its a good idea, but think its should be extended to smoking in public aswell, not just inside.

In reply to The Lemming:

Do you not feel that stating

"I hate smoking" and "Personally I'd ban smoking today." doe not exactly sit well with

"smokers are ignorant, self-centred "

We are merely in the realm here of "lets ban everything that I don't like". Which makes accusing smokers of being "self-centered" quite amusing.

As which point we get the "NO, I'm not ignorant and self-centered, it's them, them over there, they are ignorant and self-centered because they don't agree with me".

Cue the playing of the "for the sake of the children" card.

In reply to waterbaby:

On and off smoker here, ex smoker at the moment.
Smoking around kids is a no no, when I was smoking, I'd go outside the house to light up and didn't smoke with kids in the car.
Banning people from smoking on their own in the car is going too far in my opinion.
I pretty much agree (as usual) with John Hat's opinion.

In reply to John_Hat:

No.

In reply to The Lemming:

Then sorry, sir, but I hearby accuse you of being a hypocrite!

**grins**

In reply to teflonpete:

Agree with all of that! (as usual...!) **grins** and thanks!

In reply to waterbaby:

No smoking in your own car shouldn't be banned, but chucking the wrapping or fag ends out of the window should carry the death penalty.

In reply to Trangia:

Fair.

In reply to Trangia:

Chucking ANY litter out of your car should carry the death penalty!

In reply to The Lemming:

I'm sure any government could find ways to tax something new if the prospect of a smoking ban did ever creep over the horizon .. would just need a permanent change in a lot more people perhaps and less taking it up to start with. Perhaps not for the forseeable future though since we seem to be in hock for a decade or more ..

In reply to waterbaby:
Strongly against it. Let natural selection deal with it. Sam goes for seatbelts that someone mentioned.

In reply to whistler:
>

I'd ban seat belts and replace them with a bayonet in the middle of the steering wheel pointing back towards ther driver's chest.

I'd bet accident figures would drop immediately and the standard of driving would reach an all time high.

What if they let people smoke just "light" cigarettes (e.g. Marlboro lights) in the car?

In reply to waterbaby:

On a similar theme one of my pet hates is arsehole drivers who tail gate you and blat along at 100mph with kids in the back.

I had some bowel worm tailgating me on the M6 last week. Admittedly I was doing a tickle over 80 mph, but he was desperate to gets his bling bling Merc 4x4 past. I eventually pulled over fed up of him being inches from my bumper (and my car is not exactly slow), and let the knobwart past.

10 minutes later I pull into the services and notice I am next to him, to see his Baby on Board sticker and 2 kids in the back. The minge wipe had been doing way in excess of the ton, with his kids onboard, on a wet motorway. I got out and loudly commented to Endless Winter that "That's the stupid knut who was taligating me in his shitty Merc, and the f*cker has kids on board - they should sterlise wankers like that".

He elected not the argue the toss and looked a bit stunned, standing there with his poncy jumper over his shoulders and his blue slacks.


rant ends..

In reply to Gandalf:

Actually the main reason for banning phones in cars is cause a mobile phone does 2 things - First as you said it removes the hands from the wheel, but Second & more importantly it's an active distraction that removes the drivers attention from driving. Whilst smoking while driving may be bad for a whole host of reasons it would be foolhardy to argue that it's a danger due to the distraction to the driver it presents.

In reply to Gandalf:
There are lots of activities in a car which involve taking your hand from the wheel; changing gear, operating your windows either mechanically or electrically, changing CD's and so on.
But taking your hand off the wheel for a second is, in my opinion, far less worrying than taking your eyes off the road.
As someone who will not entertain sat-nav, I am still puzzled about how having a sat nav screen in front of you is different from watching the tV intermittently while driving.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


The sat-nav, though possibly a distraction, helps to keep your attention on the job in hand while a TV, just like a phone, distracts you from the activity of driving.

Like many people who drive, I use sat-nav and find it invaluable locating addresses.

In reply to waterbaby:

It's an unjustified and intolerant intrusion into our private lives and private spaces. As such I'm sure Ed Balls and Harridan Harperson are at this moment getting it drafted into law.

In reply to waterbaby:

I am a smoker, and have taken to the smoking bans that surround us with no problems at all, and agree with removing smoking from public enclosed spaces. I stand well away from doors, allowing the smoke that isn't polluting my lungs to be taken away into the clear blue yonder. I do not drive, but don't smoke in the car when the children are aboard. My wife, also a smoker, will not smoke and drive, although I occasionally have a cigarette while traveling. I don't think that I am stupid, ignorant or particually self centred. I put all of my cigarette ends in my pocket if a suitable receptacle is not available, rather smelly granted, but I certainly won't litter.

But in this particular case, if this were to be made law, and I was pulled over by the police for smoking in my own car, I would stub it out on his helmet....picking up the litter afterwards of course.

Pete

In reply to Postmanpat:

At what level of the abuse of children do you think the state should intervene?

In reply to waterbaby: To answer your question - I think the smoking with children in the car is a terrible and harmful habit, which I was subjected to as a child. I've see 3 adults sitting in a car smoking with a small child in it, all the windows up so that you hardly see through the far window. Disgusting.

I think banning smoking in cars per se is a step too far however.

In reply to wayno265:


When it's abuse.When did you stop beating your wife?

In reply to Postmanpat:

How do you define that? Do you agree or disagree that smoking with children in the car is harmful and unpleasant to/for the children?

Don't know what you meant/were implying with your wife-beating comment, but an adult has a much larger say over their life than a child.

In reply to wayno265:
Unpleasant but barely harmful in statistical terms.How do you define abuse?
Feeding them pizzas? Not feeding them pizzas? A glass of wine? A bottle of wine? Making them play sports? Stopping them playing sports? Making them walk to school? Not letting them walk to school?

We shouldn't use the extreme an tragic cases of abuse to justify State restriction of the normal behaviours of the whole population.


I meant you'd loaded the question.

In reply to Postmanpat: Is passive smoking not harmful then?

In reply to wayno265:

Compared to active smoking barely at all. Define harmful.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's scientifically proven from studies that children have a higher risk of developing, and being admitted to hospital with, asthma if their parents smoke, even if they only smoke outside. This is because the harmful chemicals cling to skin/ clothes etc for hours.

It's surely not beyond the realms to conclude that children in cars filled with smoke will also be at risk. I'd go as far as to suggest they are risk regularly travelling in a car in which people smoke, even if smoking doesn't occur when the child is there.

Thus, legislating against smoking when the child is present is good, but won't cut the risks completely.

In reply to bentley's biceps:
Scientifically proven by the fact that as the number of people smoking has fallen sharply the number of children suffering from asthma has gone through the roof?

In reply to Postmanpat:

If you want to argue with the science, you could at least look at the evidence before spreading your sarcasm around.

I assume you think asthma develops instantly you make contact with smoke, and therefore there's no correlation. Have you considered it may be a longer term relationship? Thought not.

In reply to bentley's biceps:

Why on earth would you assume I thought that? Smoking has been falling for 30 years and asthma rising.How long term do you want to wait?

Most of the main surveys eg.WHO actually struggle to find a much of a statistical correlation.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Because you said smoking had sharply fallen- by definition this means a short period.

Have a look through some of WHO's stuff about how passive smoking is safe: http://search.who.int/search?q=passive+smoking+asthma&entqr=0&sort=...

In reply to Postmanpat:

Must be the most stupid comment ive seen you post.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No Sorry this one must be even worse! you cant compare feeding pizza to kids in the same breath as breathing smoke all over them, im sorry people die from smoke inhalation. And passive smoking is inhaling smoke with harmful chemicals in it. I dont see health warnings on a chicago town big meaty one do you?

In reply to waterbaby: I suspect there's more adverse health outcomes from smoking, active or passive, than asthma.

In reply to wayno265:

Of course, but worsening of asthma is well proven, despite what PostmanPat says.

In reply to IainRUK:

Well since they banned bear baiting there are few pleasures left in life.

In reply to John_Hat:

Like I said John, you were right!

In reply to HATTSTER:


Why not?

How many children brought up on bad diets go on to development diet related health problems later in life. I suspect the number would be at least a thousand times higher than those who develop health problems from passive smoking. The same could go for drinking alcohol in front of your children. How many alcoholics has this practice created?

In reply to Removed User: Can see your point,on the unhealthy diet but a fat child can lose weight and get them selves healthy. I dont think lung cancer is reversible though?. Have you ever tried making a kid eat something it doesnt want to? it will moan and groan and may or not eat it, but air is something different, we actualy need it to live and in a car with their parents smoking i dont realy think theyve got much of a say in the matter do you?

In reply to HATTSTER:

Well true that a child can grow and change their eating habits provided the damage has not already been done.

I'd like to see some accurate numbers though on how many people have their health damaged by passive smoking and how many have their health damaged by bad diet etc, etc. I think the dangers in passive smoking are exagerated and health risks from other less fashionable targets are ignored.

In reply to HATTSTER:

No you probably can't. Passive smoking (now) probably being orders less harmful than parental neglect with respect to diet. Obesity patterns carried on through life (not just through habit - research indicates that there are developmental changes in children given an unhealthy western diet), diabetes, heart disease and that's certainly only the start.


Actually you do see health warnings in the form of nutritional information which clearly indicate an acceptable/recommended dose of certain ingredients/components. This much is good, this much is harmful - perhaps you think they aren't important?

Sadly there's often a double whammy of fags and crap food inflicted on many kids. Before we fuss further over passive somoking (I like where we are now, it's a good bablance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the publice) let's meaningfully address the quality of foods that those nice retailers sell so enthusiastically.

In reply to Wrongfoot: You cant compare, Smoking kills (picture of a black lung) with This product contains 365 calories 25% of your daily intake. Thats a Nutritional content,The others a fact.To be honest you do need to eat to live, and the crap people eat contributes to their health, but in reality you dont need to smoke to live (some smokers might like to think they cant do without them).

In reply to HATTSTER:

You are right. Smoking is a pleasure (sort of) so people can choose to sacrifice their health for it. We have to eat, so there is definitely an onus of responsibility on food producers to correctly label their food, perhaps putting pictures of congested arteries on packets of streaky bacon to emphasise the dangers, or a close up of a busrt blood vessel in the brain that was the direct result of consuming too much salt...

...he says as he tucks into his spaghetti carbonara.

In reply to HATTSTER:

Generally they don't. Research* suggests that the body adapts depending upon the diet in the early years. It would follow that to change your diet is probably at a minimum as difficult as giving up the coffin nails and passive smoking isn't considered enough to hook you (although it's a bad example and probably leads on to the real deal for many impressionable kids). It's also a question of dose. Passive smoking is very low dose so relatively high toxicity adds up to not much, diet is a massive dose and small impacts add up to a hell of a lot.


You've jumped ahead there, and not been fair to the food issues. Heart disease and diabetes are often irreversible even with the treatment of a changed diet and of course many lung cancers are treatable (at cost).


To me it seems a poor childhood diet is the equivalent of hooking your kid on the smokes (ensuring a significant dose to continue the analogy above) the child has little say (or too much say perhaps?) in the matter as to what it's fed and will change biologically as a result of the diet. To change after 16yrs of repetition isn't going to be easy.


Yes I have and so have millions of parents, it's wearing but achieveable. Is this societies take on parenting today? Not doing something that might damage your child, rather than actively doing something that might make it healthier... Lazy vs Proactive.

Sadly it probably is.

In a moment of crisis, I once threw a fag end out of the minibus window on receiving a bollocking from the club matriarch. The butt flew back in and down her ample non-smoking cleavage.

She was incandescent, but sadly did not burst into flames.

In reply to HATTSTER:


You seem mixed up with respect to smoking and passive smoking the two are not the same... I'll reiterate my previous point about DOSE. Dietary abuse doses are a bigger problem in general than passive smoking doses now, because we've outlawed smoking in public places.

The car thing is bollocks because those who smoke in cars probably smoke at home and at other times so the specific dose to the unfortunate kids regulalrly exposed to passive smoking in family cars is going to be far above the general regardless of banning smoking in cars. The logical solution is banning parents from smoking completely whether in a private place or not. This is never going to happen an outright ban would have more success and even that is giong to be well nigh impossible to police.

In reply to Wrongfoot:
Dietary abuse doses are a bigger problem in general than passive smoking doses now, because we've outlawed smoking in public places.
>Im an ex smoker, i gave up the day we found out my wife was expecting our 1st child, i cant stand the smell and hate being anywhere near someone smoking, so i know what it like on both sides of the coin. Ive included your part above where youve admitted that smoking in public was banned because of the health element to passive smokers? so wheres the argument, public vehicles have no smoking signs in them , why shouldnt cars? they carry more than just the smoker in them, its the smokers dirty habbit not mine or the non smoking kids in the car with them, why should they have to breath it?. I am not against a full smoking ban. If you want to smoke go somewhere on your own or with other smokers just dont inflict the dirty stale smelling habbit on others.

In reply to HATTSTER:

We'll have to disagree.

While you can try to advocate outlawing smoking in some private areas (cars) perhaps depending on whether there are children there. Why stop at cars? Granny's house, the kid's bedrooms, the bathroom, the whole house? Over 16's can choke but under 16's should be protected? Parents who repeatedly refuse to comply what do we do? Take the kids into care to protect them from passive smoking in the car? Fine the parents (probably low income) so the kids suffer further? Confiscate the car so the family has reduced mobility? It's just stupid and very_bad_law.

I think the law now is pretty good where smoking is concerned, enforced mostly by the responsible owners of public spaces at limited cost and usually without recourse to the courts. Landlords don't serve repeat offenders, shops deny custom, bus companies refuse to carry or risk prosecution themselves. It's simple stuff and it mostly works.

I think the next public health battle should be food quality, I've not decided how it should be done yet, but I think that the smoking thing has gone as far as it can without an outright ban.

In reply to HATTSTER:

But accurate. If passive smoking in cars led to an earlier than otherwise death of,shall we say 1 child in 1,000,000 would you want to ban it?

In reply to Wrongfoot: Fair enough, we will agree to disagree, lol

Ps.. not just for the kids in cars too i hate being in a car when someones smoking i think it real bad manners.

In reply to Wrongfoot:

Er "How I think it should be done" since I haven't yet achieved my goal of total world domination.

In reply to HATTSTER:

Which is a scandal.You should be campaigning for health warnings on pizzas.

Whatever happened to climbers? I remember when they they were anarchic freedom loving risk taking rebels. No they're a bunch of gullible conformist drones.

In reply to Postmanpat:

If youve ever lost a kid, you wouldnt even think of typing a comment like that because that one in a million could of been stopped by someone not thinking of themselves and having a smoke in the open air, there was a thread on here the other day about some people hotboxing a cave at stanage i think, as its a practice that works!!??, ide say thats exactly what your doing to anyone sat in the car whilst you smoke too and thats a more enclosed space.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't remember climbers taking risks with other people's health back in the day. I used to smoke, I made that choice understanding the risks. But I didn't force it upon my kids.

In reply to bentley's biceps:

Beat me too it, theyre saying what about drink and drugs? too, well if your sat in the back of a car and get drunk, no one else does. if you get high no one else does, UNLESS heres a thought someone smokes a joint then it affects everyone in the car and you can fail a drugs test by inhaling passive canabis smoke so theres an argument that it does affect others around you.

In reply to HATTSTER:

It was a question,not a comment. So what would you not ban in order to save early death?

In reply to HATTSTER:

There is a cost/benefit analysis associated with every public health decision from expensive NHS equipment to passive smoking legislation which costs to enforce.

Only a fool believes the absolute that any single life is worth anything to save and that such decisions can operate outside the real world of economics and cost. It's the careless soundbite of the ignorant and pandered to by dishonest politicians who know that there are budgetary limitations to everything but are not prepared to state this simple truth to the masses.

Any individual parent might sacrifice the world for their child, the remainder of the world might feel differently and have a good point.

In reply to HATTSTER:


Increasing evidence that what your lifestyle choices actually genteically impact your offspring and their descendants.Should we ban drinking? Should we ban bad diets? Should we send women to jail who drink whilst pregnant?

waterbaby and Postman pat: All im trying to say is i dont think (strongly) that non smokers should be subjected to other peoples smoke, now im big enough and ugly enough to put my point across if i find it anoying but a small child in a car say on a long journey (dont think of bringing the short trip into it) and theyre parents are chain smoking are going to inhale alot of 2nd hand crap,and theyre not going to have much say in it. If you think thats right to subject a young childs developing lungs too, shame on you and your morals are in a differant place to mine.

In reply to Wrongfoot: And maybe after you`ve finished with the fags and the junk food you could save all our children from those terrible 'extreme sports' SO many young people lost every year in the mountains after being encouraged to take them up by so called responsible bodies like the bmc.

I know it's hardly the same but where would you stop?

In reply to Wrongfoot:


I think I see what you're trying to say, but can you be a bit clearer?

If saving a life doesn't cost anything other than giving up a harmful practice, where's your beef with that?

In reply to Postmanpat:

In reply to bentley's biceps:
It's really not a difficult concept. Look up utilitarianism ("the greatest good of the greatest number")

We can reduce all sorts of bad things by restricting peoples' freedoms but at some point the losses of these freedoms are no longer offset by the benefits.So,obviously banning random murder does not cause more harm than good. However, having surveillance cameras in every home to stop marital arguments or child abuse is generally regarded as not worth the loss of privacy (do you agree?)

My point above gullibility refers to the specious argument that passive smoking causes in cars actually causes enough premature deaths to justify the State so restricting our freedoms. And no,one simply isn't justification.There is very little evidence to justify this. The concept is simply being used to move towards an outright ban of smoking. The doctors involved don't appear to understood the precedent this would set for other invasions of our private spaces.

In reply to HATTSTER:

Don't try and take the moral high ground as if that closes down the argument. All you've done is stake a claim to the intellectual low ground and a certain level of moral blindness.. What it reflects is that you unable or unwilling to address the equally big but more complex moral issue of personal freedom and individual responsibility.
You've also fallen hook line and sinker for the prevailing propoganda on passive smoking.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Don't patronise me, I doubt I know any less than you on the subject. I assume you know Jim and the Indians (look it up if you don't). Utalitarianism only applies when there's a significant downside.

What exactly is the downside to stopping people smoking? Restricting freedom?

In reply to Postmanpat:
If you want to take that line, you could say that there are very many premature deaths due to smoking and even passive smoking. Even if people don't die they suffer ill health, which reduces the quality of their life. In what way is this the greatest good for the greatest number?

People are very bad at making rational decisions about their own futures. Perhaps it is their own choice, but there is a fair case for arguing that the younger person and the older person they become are separate people in the eyes of the law and that the younger is criminally negligent if they smoke or eat unhealthily.

I know it's crazy but it's true.

In reply to bentley's biceps:

Well he couldn't have put it much more clearly could he? In this case the upside is hugely exaggerated and the downside (obviously personal freedom-not that I give a toss when I can smoke in my car but that the State thinks it can tell set such a precedent) ignored.

In reply to anonymouse:
And drinking and bad diet and shitty lifestyles etc.At what stage would you draw the line?

In reply to Postmanpat:
I wouldn't. I'd force everyone to live the life of a yoga master: museli, stretching and dried fruit.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I still haven't seen your critical appraisal of the evidence.

Recent update (chopped as it's long), which I assume you will have read.

On the 24 March, the tobacco advisory group of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) in England published its report on passive smoking and children. The report details the effects of exposure to secondhand smoke in children and includes a chapter on associated costs, a consideration of ethical problems, and a review of potential strategies to tackle the problem.1

The report attests to the substantial expansion of research on the health effects of passive smoking and the measurement of harmful exposure.1 We now know that no level of exposure is safe; that exposure to passive smoke in childhood is strongly associated with a range of respiratory effects and serious diseases, including sudden infant death syndrome; and that exposure is a likely cause of brain tumours, leukaemia, and meningitis in children.1 2 3 However, the report excludes established late effects of in utero, childhood, and adolescent exposure including reductions in the fertility of female offspring,4 and breast cancer in premenopausal adult women.2 5 In fact, evidence is mounting that non-smokers exposed as children are at risk of a range of adult onset diseases.

With increasingly comprehensive restrictions in public spaces, both indoors and out, we are beginning to tackle protection in children’s home environments—homes, multi-unit dwellings, and family vehicles. The arguments for increasing protection for children in these spaces are strong. The home is the major source of exposure, children are more vulnerable than adults, and restrictions in homes reduce the likelihood that adolescents will start to smoke and progress to regular smoking.6

Smoking in enclosed spaces persists over time, and the hazard increases when nicotine residues react with ambient nitrous acid, found indoors and in vehicles, to form potent carcinogens.7 Heavy metals, such as cadmium and lead, are also deposited on furniture, carpets, and clothing, so infants and children continue to be exposed when active smoking has ceased.8 Limiting smoking to outdoors can reduce indoor exposure considerably, but outdoor exposures can be substantial,9 and residues are carried back inside on hands and clothing.

Smoking in multi-unit dwellings is increasingly under threat as non-smoking tenants demand smoke-free environments and landlords become aware of the business case for smoke-free buildings. Bans on smoking in publicly funded multi-unit housing are planned or implemented in several communities........... [edited]

References

1. Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. Report on passive smoking and children. RCP, 2010.
2. California Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed identification of environmental tobacco smoke as a toxic air contaminant. State of California Air Resources Board, Appendix III, Part B Health Effects, 2005. www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ets2006/app3exe.pdf.
3. US Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: a report of the surgeon general. 2006. www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/.
4. Cooper AR, Moley KH. Maternal tobacco use and its preimplantation effects on fertility: more reasons to stop smoking. Semin Reprod Med 2008;26:204-12.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
5. Collishaw NE, Boyd NF, Cantor KP, Hammond SK. Johnson KC, Millar J, et al. Canadian expert panel on tobacco smoke and breast cancer risk. 2009. www.otru.org/pdf/special/expert_panel_tobacco_breast_cancer.pdf.
6. Wakefield MA, Chaloupka FJ, Kaufman NJ, Orleans C T, Barker DC, Ruel EE. Effect of restrictions on smoking at home, at school, and in public places on teenage smoking: cross sectional study. BMJ 2000;321:333-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, Jacob P 3rd, Singer BC, Destaillats H. Atmospheric chemistry special feature: formations of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1010; Published online 8 February.
8. Matt GE, Quintana PJ, Hovell MF, Bernert JT, Song S, Novianti N, et al. Households contaminated by environmental tobacco smoke: sources of infant exposures. Tob Control 2004;13:29-37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Klepeis NE, Ott WR, Switzer P. Real-time measurement of outdoor tobacco smoke particles. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 2007;57:522-34.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

In reply to Postmanpat:

You continue to assume passive smoking is safe. You ignore all the recent evidence that proves you are wrong.

Therefore you are not worthy of further discussion as your arrogance blinds you.

In reply to bentley's biceps:
I think he wants to know how many people die each year as a result of passive smoking, so that he can then say - "that's nowhere near enough to offset the fleeting pleasure that mommy and poppy get out of sparking up."

In reply to anonymouse:

2005 figures suggested.... [quote] (Government quote from a study)

They found 2,700 deaths among people aged 20 to 64 could be attributed to second-hand smoke and 8,000 in 65-year-olds and over.

In reply to paul birch:

Not many compared to losses from early onset diabetes etc. I think climbing's pretty safe from me and most others.


Well actually, I wouldn't start with a law banning anything - I'd look for a cost effective method. Perhaps I'd start with some form of junk food taxation, be good for the deficit, save on NHS bills in future what's not to like. Difficulty would be defining junk-food. Butter is pretty bad for you but it's often an ingredient as well as a directly consumed food, adding saturated fat and salt to dough based products just to give a longer shelf-life seems to fit the junk definition. It wouldn't be easy and would require some sort of non-junk certification. Maybe a phased in accreditation scheme where after 5yrs if your product isn't certified junk-free you lose the VAT exemption on food making your junk product more expensive than the good stuff... Cost of regulation might be counter productive though?

However that's just conjecture I haven't really thought it through much even as a starting idea.

In reply to bentley's biceps:
And I haven't seen yours !!!! I've read these articles .All you've done is cut and paste a report by a body with an obvious axe to grind. Smoking is very unhealthy. As doctors they want to ban smoking. Therefore they have an interest in exaggerating the impact of passive smoking in cars.The Surgeon general in the US has been producing the same warnings for years but with no real statistical evidence to support it.

If you can find me some solid epidemiological evidence and statistical evidence of it causing serious ill health I'm interested.

In reply to bentley's biceps:
Danke Scone. Schon. Schone?

Thanks.

In reply to anonymouse:

Don't be a dick. I don't even smoke and my wife never smoked when the kids were around. Can you really not see the bigger issue?

In reply to bentley's biceps:

Er... Is it only me noticing that those statistics would relate to exposure pre "ban of smoking in public spaces". It's not correct to use statistics that don't relate to the current situation. You may as well use 1970's car safety data.

Either dumb or sneaky!

In reply to bentley's biceps:

It's never struck you that a)such precision is by definition nonsencical.
b)That people over 65 will have been passive smoking for 65 years. Inhaling a few fumes in a car aged 12 were probably not the key.

You really should go and read a bit more evidence instead of accepting whatever you're told.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm not being a dick and I wasn't talking about you and your wife. I'm not suggesting that the government should prevent just you and your wife from smoking - that would be absurd.

You cast the argument in terms of costs and benefits by asking what if it's one child in a million. I was rephrasing that kind of accounting, in a way that highlights a different aspect of it. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

In reply to Wrongfoot:

There's no more recent data, so that's all we have to improve upon. Call it sneaky if you want, although putting the date on it may give you the clue.

PostmanPat- I'm not sure what you want. Quotations of large scale, decent studies support the argument but you still refute it.

In reply to Postmanpat:
It's hard to do plus-or-minus symbols on this forum.

In reply to bentley's biceps:
He doesn't refute it - he just denies it. He asks for numbers, then denies that the numbers have any relevance.

In reply to waterbaby:

As usual, this argument has descended into the farcical Nth degree.

The proposal is to stop ALL smoking in cars not just cars with kids in.

If a smoker decides not to transport kids or non smoking passengers, why can't they smoke in their car?

In reply to anonymouse:
>

But my argument was clearly about balancing the right to personal freedom against the alleged harm caused, not about balancing the alleged harm caused against the specific and rather trivial "pleasure" of setting light to a dried leaf.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I suspect that over the years I've studied this more than you have, but I won't be drawn into that argument. I don't accept anything that isn't properly evidenced.

Anyway, if we go with your arguments all children could sit at schoolroom filled with cigarette smoke every day and no harm would come of it. Don't you find that even slightly suspect?

In reply to Postmanpat:

You can couch it as a question of freedom, but if setting fire to dried leaves and inhaling the smoke wasn't pleasurable and addictive, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We have laws against all sorts of weirdly undamaging things that can be recast as questions of freedom, but are still disallowed.

In reply to bentley's biceps:

You are presumably aware of the much awaiting WHO survey of people married to or growing up with smokers that discovered that despite all the fanfare their likelihood of contracting lung cancer were exactly the same as the rest of the population? And, as noted above you'll have spotted that asthma cases have risen almost as rapidly as smoking has fallen?

In reply to HATTSTER:


In summary- it's late and I want to go to bed.

Erm....just where did I say I agreed with subjecting children to cigarette smoke? Frankly, people that do that are damn selfish.

But like many of you said and boy it took a while for you all to get there, what about diet. Btw a pizza is not evil. It's only bad if all you eat is highly processed, high fat, salt and sugar foods. That's about education and children are getting this is primary school now.

As for asthma-well you can't tell me that the cars we all drive are not one of the biggest contributing factors in childhood asthma. I only have to drive South to North and my son will need his inhaler by the time we get there.

Before you say anything, I gave up smoking a year before I conceived, deliberatly. However I spent a lot of time with other smokers during my pregnancy, stupidly not believing it would harm the unborn baby. Passive smoking is a factor!

In reply to Postmanpat:

Enstrom/ Kabat is seriously flawed.

Anyway, you win- I can't be bothered trying to have a proper discussion with anyone as opinionated and blinkered as you.

In reply to Postmanpat: The real problem is to separate the civil liberty problem from the deaths caused from Passive smoking. I was about to pitch in with some statistics to support your argument but found that actually they are quite scary

The probability of contracting lung cancer having not smoked is 1.3% based on a canadian study. Recent estimates are that regular passive smoking doubles the chances of contracting lung cancer. Most of this risk is in developing children.

Just over 25% of UK adults smoke (statisitcs.gov) If we under-estimate and say that half of those have children. There are around 10 million children (16 and under) so lets say that 1.25 million children live in a house with smokers.

Assuming they will be subjected to some level of smoke, this means that around 16,000 children today will die unneccesarily from passive smoking.

Even so, I struggle to justify any outright smoking ban. The law should be created in such a way as to protect others from being poisoned by smoke, to stop smoking in these situations, without preventing individual from smoking when it affects are minimal.

As seems to be traditional in this thread. I am an ex-smoker with children

In reply to bentley's biceps:

Glad to meet someone who knows everything

In reply to Postmanpat:

Likewise. Although less good.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Survey? I thought you wanted epidemiological studies and statistical evidence? Or is that what you meant?

There's a WHO report here:
http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/en/ets_report.pdf

In reply to James Moyle:

Same here But what your numbers don't show is the impact of smoking in cars. Even if we accept that passive smoking in the home has a seriously harmful impact are we to assume that the odd fag in a car has a big impact. Why ban that and not smoking at home?
Frankly I'd almost prefer they were honest and went the whole hog and just banned smoking.

In reply to Postmanpat:
This is inane. There's not going to be a report on smoking in cars, lifts, cafes that serve flaccid sandwiches, swimming pool changing rooms etc... There are numerous reports that show that second hand (and even third hand I was intrigued to discover tonight) smoking increase the risk of contracting a variety of diseases. You don't need to sub-divide it further.

Yes indeed. Good use of the word 'almost' there to mean 'wouldn't prefer it all really'.

In reply to anonymouse:

Yup,have you read it?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Is that the one you were talking about?

In reply to Postmanpat:

According to James's figures there are around 15,000,000 smokers paying on average around £2.00 a day in tax to smoke. That's around £11 Billion a year revenue.
Can't see an outright ban coming any time soon while that is the case.

In reply to anonymouse:

I believe so.It's not actually terribly convincing, conflating as it does maternal prenatal smoking with later passive smoking. Produces some numbers on glue ear and bronchitis which lets face it are unpleasant but not generally terminal. The comments on cancer are highly circumspect.
Anyway,time for bed.

In reply to anonymouse:
There are numerous surveys to sow junk food kills but not one particular variety.Should we ban it one item at a time? Goodnight

In reply to Postmanpat:

Theres only one dick here and you seem to be doing a very good job of it, im not taking any moral ground, im saying if you think its fine to subject kids to smoke then your a tool, thats it realy, i dont give a toss if you go and smoke yourself to death? i see you say you dont smoke but your wife does, so your not against passive smoking as i suppose youve done it for years, so in your head its fine, but in mine its not ok to put up with some ones dirty stinking habbit, and when someone does present you with articles you pull the theyre anti smoking card and have an axe to grind, like bentley says, if you think its ok to subject kids to it you aint worth the breath.

In reply to HATTSTER: By Breath i mean unpoluted breath(not from passive smoking)

In reply to HATTSTER:

"

Er,what does this mean if not taking the moral high ground?

You simply aren't prepared to address the core issue of how much harm has to be done by something to justify it being banned. You seem very angry.Were you drinking? Very dangerous.Should be banned.

In reply to teflonpete:


This was my point, it'll never happen. It would be a massive undertaking to ban smoking, the knock on effect would be huge. I'm not sure it would necessarily be an election winner either None of the Parties are going to take it on, they'd pay it lip service no doubt but it'd be put off all the time, like climate change (best not to start on that one).

In reply to Postmanpat: lol, Dont drink (stopped over a year ago) dont smoke (stopped 17 years ago). why? do you get angry and violent when drunk? cant you handle it? sounds like your talking from experiance?.
I agree that the government are trying to namby pamby us and tell us what we can and cant do, which is wrong as we should be able to do what we want (legaly) when we want to. But that also dont mean we can subject someone who doesnt smoke to it! thats their right not to have to smoke someones 2nd hand smoke.
If it harms the smoker whos inhaling it through a filter, whats it doing to the people whos sat by him? if hes in the car on his own he should be able to smoke as many as he wants but if theres people in, i dont just mean kids , then it should be classed as a public vehicle, no smoking.
But that would probably be more of a head ache for the police to police, so ide say they will most likely make it a full ban.
You see to not want to admit that smoking around kids is a bad thing.

In reply to HATTSTER:

Can't see why it should be such a headache: if provinces such as Ontario and several American states have just such a ban, why is it beyond our police to follow their example?

In reply to IainRUK:



though nobody is telling parents of obese kids that they are doing wrong.
or parents of teen-alcoholic vandals.
where is the consistency?

In reply to waterbaby: Wish they would make there mind up! http://unclebrice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/doctors-smoke-camels.gif
I don't know what to do!

In reply to Postmanpat:
Good afternoon...

No, but neither should we write one study that looks at passive smoking in cars, one that looks at passive smoking in telephone booths, one that looks at passive smoking in kitchens, one in dining rooms, one in bedrooms... etc.

In reply to anonymouse:

I'm not suggesting we should. I'm making the simple commonsense assumption that since the evidence that passive smoking in front of children causes really significant harm is marginal the likelihood that the occasional fag in a car has anysignificant impact is vanishingly small.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm sure it's been said above but if the little buggers don't like it, then they can always get out and walk

In reply to HATTSTER: sounds like your talking from experiance?.

Yes,eperience of other people getting drunk and aggressive.I just wate time on internet forums.


Smoking in a car with kids is going to have such a minimal impact that banning anybody from smoking in a car is using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.
Nobody has yet answered why we should ban the serving of junk food to children.
But if you're really concerned you should start the "No,to horse riding" campaign.1 in 350 horse riders(many of them children) are admitted to hospital every year because of their dangerous addiction, not to mention the impact their problem has on "passive riders." Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's likely to be incremental and cumulative so any increase in exposure increases the risk. Talking about occasional fags is - as you know - beside the point. Every fag is an occasional fag.

I agree with you that it seems strange just to ban smoking in cars.

In reply to anonymouse:
Likelihood most child will experience no more one cigarette a day second hand in a car for a few years. Do you really think that is going to make much difference? I mean, really?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Hmmm. What I think is by-the-by. If such matters could be resolved by 'what-I-think" the world would be a strange place. What we need is a proper epidemiological study of second hand smoking in cars.

In reply to anonymouse:

Or the use of some common sense based on the numerous studies of related subjects.

In reply to Postmanpat:
F*ck me sideways, are you seriously trying to make an arguement for it being ok to smoke in a car with kids in it? Yes that will make a difference. Do you remember what it was like when your lungs were totally clean before your system became 'accustomed' to pollutants like cigarette smoke? If you have a child in the car who doesn't hack and cough in the presence of cigarette smoke, then the damage is already done. Not to mention sending them out into the world stinking of stale smoke in clothes, hair etc..

In reply to Postmanpat: Stop trying to change the subject and bring other subjects into it, i thought we were discussing passive smoking being harmful to children,you realy are trying your hardest (and failing dismaly) in your argument that smoking in a confined space isnt dangerous to the people around you, i agree with Bentley on not posting anymore as ide say as an oldman, you must be set in your own ways, put your feet up with your pipe and slippers and type some more rubbish on the internet.
Its like talking to the village fool, blinkerd isnt the word for you. Thats me finished on the matter.

In reply to BOOGA:

Dont waste your time mate, hes either just trying to wind people up, or on a different planet.

In reply to HATTSTER:

Er,have you tried reading the OP? It was about "rights"(quote,unquote) and the balancing of one's rights to behave freely with the protection of minors from abuse of those rights. Which part of the discussion has not been on that issue, except of course yours and Hatster's?

You and Hatster seem to think that the volume of your arguments will offset their lack of content. It doesn't.

In reply to HATTSTER:

Please learn the difference between you're and your, it's painful to read.

In reply to always_falling:

Like this? you're a douchebag? was that right?. 1st day registerd and you're (there i go again thanks for correcting me)trying the spelling card, go away.

In reply to HATTSTER:

Please don't tempt me........

In reply to HATTSTER:

My, my, you really are angry. I hope you're not typical of people who post on here.

If you are trying to argue a point your responses should at the very least be readable (and I'm not just referring to your spelling).

Have a nice day.

In reply to Franklin the pedantic cat: lol

In reply to always_falling: Well they were ok for you to read, you understood it didnt you? i think you will fit right in on this forum with certain people.
I get angry when people think its ok to smoke in a car with kids in. If you think spelling is more important,and you just want a good read, go and read the readers digest site and dont reply to my posts if you cant read them.

In reply to HATTSTER:

LOL. You're anger might be better channeled and more persuasive by making a rational argument than shouting abuse at anyone who disagrees but one suspects that's not really the way your brain works is it?

In reply to Postmanpat: Im not shouting abuse at people who disagree, im amazed at the idiotic comments on spelling and small minded people like you who think passive smoking isnt harmful (ask roy castle). like i told you, you havnt got an argument and if i believe smoking in a car is harmfull to kids, no matter how many times im pulled up on my spelling or you talk drivel and refute articles put in front of you by people, after you asked for them, isnt going to make me agree with you. This is definately my last post on this subject as i feel like im talking to the real postman pat or at least a man inside the cartoon outfit that the materials so thick, no matter what you say he just cant hear reason.
So carry on, you wont bait me, but ill carry on reading as your logic on harming kids by passive smoking is quite laughable, and i need a good laugh as im apparently "angry".

In reply to HATTSTER:


I'm simply suggesting you might like to provide some evidence that the odd fag in a car causes any significant harm to passengers even over a period of a few years. Nobody has provided any least of all yourself. If you had read any of the reports on the subject you would either realise there isn't much or you would provide some.

It seems quite curious to be so self righteous but unwilling or unable to provide any evidence to support your view don't you think?

In reply to Postmanpat:

No matter how many times you repeat this it doesn't make it any less silly.

I could say, "we're not talking about the odd fag, we're talking about kids who are being driven on a round the world trip while their parents and older siblings chain smoke illegally imported chinese gaspers." but that doesn't help us either. You know and I know that there is going to be a range of exposures. You can't choose the child, you have to consider them all.

You also know that asking for a report on the specific danger of second hand smoking in cars is silly. You've admitted as much above.

Stop being so silly.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Say the daily exposure is ten cigarettes, then it's a 10% increase, in a more than usually confined space.

In reply to Postmanpat:

So how do you balance the "unpleasant but not generally terminal" cases of bronchitis with a smokers freedom to indulge themselves? You really don't know.

It's the knock on effect of the odd cigarette with the kids around, that adds up over the years. People who smoke in the presence of kids tell themselves it's just the odd one but it eventually mounts up. That is what scares me, you can't undo the damage and you're not giving them a chance.

Anyway this was all about people's rights. How can you ban it in cars? That's totally unfair on those people who have no kids. It's just a slippery slope, where would it stop. Telling you you can't eat certain foods, you can't climb it's a risk to health, you can't ride motorcycles, parachute, etc. If you're going to do it, figure a way of banning all smoking, a much better idea, if somewhat unlikely!

In reply to waterbaby:
I don't have a problem with people smoking, although since the smoking ban I find cigarette smoke a much less pleasing odour.

Apparently, smokers are a net benefit to the country, because they're taxed for taking an addictive drug and they die younger removing the need for many years of expensive geriatric care. If only the government didn't waste the money trying to stop people from smoking.

That aside, it's a tricky one because cigarettes are addictive in a way that climbing and parachuting aren't. It's hard to decide whether a smoker is truly making a free choice to smoke. It might be a free choice to being with - peer pressure aside - but it rapidly ceases to be so.

In reply to anonymouse:


Which is perhaps the point .. how much responsibility should society take to protect those who insist on damaging themselves when it also damages society too .. in costs and social effects. Much the same applies to those who over-eat and become obese. Our freedoms are not absolute because we are responsible to others within our society .. especially to our children and smoking has it seems a major impact here .. for their health and when a parent dies, for their welfare.

In reply to anonymouse:

Of course I don't "know".It's a subjective judgement.

If you believe the research (I am highly sceptical) then in the UK there are 9,500 hospital admissions per year of children which are related to passive smoking. Lets say 10% of cigarattes are smoked in cars with children present(probably an exaggeration). That leaves 950 hospital admission.Lets assume about 25% of the UK's 15 million children have parents who smoke.

So, 1 in in 4,000 children may be admitted to hospital in a year for something that maybe related to passive smoking in cars. This compares to 1 in 350 for horse riding. Which is more harmful?

In the US there are an estimated 40-50,000 child admissions to hospital per year resulting from obesity. Translate that back to the UK which seems to be rapidly catching up in the obesity stakes and that's 9,000 admissions. What should we ban?

In reply to Postmanpat:
In reply to Postmanpat:

This is a link to several research studies relating to smoking, some of them specific to smoking in cars (studies carried out in Australia and America):

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_714.pdf

I would suggest from my own experience of working on Paediatric wards that the rate of admission due to passive smoking is probably much greater than the 9500 that you quote above.

The argument with cars seems to be that they are the most confined space that someone is likely to smoke in front of a child. As an outright ban on smoking would seem unlikely (and not necessarily in the most sensible option) it would be a step in the right direction of at least attempting to improve the health of our children.

Yes, there other public health concerns such as obesity, but these are being dealt with in their own way. This remains the next big challenge to public health now that we seem to have won the smoking debate.

As regards horse riding, at least that provides some good even if there are some accidents. There is no benefit from passive smoking, regardless of whether you believe it is harmful or not, I'm sure you won't deny this.

Cheers,

R

In reply to anonymouse:


Which is a very good point (few and far between on this thread) - I don't know too many smokers of >15-20cpd who at least don't want to reduce the number of fags they smoke, but simply can't.

In reply to Thickhead:
It's pretty thin stuff, especially given the where it's coming from. The only real number is that "second hand smoke levels can be 10-100 times those in homes" . "Can" being carefully used and conveniently avoiding the methodology used. If, for example, they measure the whole house but the smoking is all doe in the TV room the then the figure is meaningless.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Thats just the review article, which agreed is likely to be slightly biased, but if you follow the links where available to some of the accredited resources for their review there are more statistics and results from the studies themselves.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Measuring air quality to protect children from secondhand smoke in cars.
AU Rees VW; Connolly GN
SO Am J Prev Med. 2006 Nov;31(5):363-8.

BACKGROUND: Secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) is a major, preventable contributor to acute and chronic adverse health outcomes that affect children disproportionately. The predominant source of SHS among children is domestic exposure, and while up to two thirds of U.S. households have car smoking bans, an unacceptable number of children remain vulnerable. To help promote more effective protection through legislation, health communication strategies, or behavioral interventions, data demonstrating the adverse effect of SHS on air quality in cars are needed. METHODS: Secondhand tobacco smoke in a motor vehicle under actual driving conditions was monitored by measuring respirable suspended particles (RSPs) of less than 2.5 microns in diameter, and carbon monoxide. Forty-five driving trials were conducted, using teams of volunteer drivers and smokers recruited from the general community. Three smoking conditions (nonsmoking baseline, active smoking, and immediate post-smoking period, each 5 minutes) were crossed with two ventilation conditions (windows open, closed) in a 3 x 2 within-sessions factorial design. RESULTS: The highest mean observed RSP level was 271 mug/m(3), which is unsafe, particularly for children. Peak RSP levels were considerably higher. RSPs and carbon monoxide increased significantly from baseline after smoking, and these increases were greatest during the closed ventilation condition, compared with open ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Private passenger cars are a domestic environment with the potential to yield unsafe levels of SHS contaminants. These data may assist policymakers and health advocates to promote protective strategies to ensure smoke-free domestic environments for children.

AD Harvard School of Public Health, Division of Public Health Practice, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. vrees@hsph.harvard.edu
PMID 17046406

No, direct causal evidence cannot be proven (and you are welcome to try and disprove the relationship in a well designed large prospective study over the next 80 years if you wish, subject to approval from your local ethics committee. Good luck with that). But the weight of evidence is very much against an assertion that childhood exposure to smoke in cars is of negligible risk. Show me the data that says otherwise.
HTH
B

In reply to Postmanpat:
You seem to rely quite heavily on it up above.

That's 1 in 4000 of children with parents who smoke, right?

How did you arrive at that number, and in what way is it comparable to the other one? Is that 1 in 350 children whose parents horse-ride suffer from passive horse-riding?

Ban smoking AND the active promotion of unhealthy foods, ban neither, whatever. Why pick one OR the other? Is there any such things as passive eating?

In reply to Postmanpat:

"We can reduce all sorts of bad things by restricting peoples' freedoms but at some point the losses of these freedoms are no longer offset by the benefits. So,obviously banning random murder does not cause more harm than good. However, having surveillance cameras in every home to stop marital arguments or child abuse is generally regarded as not worth the loss of privacy (do you agree?)"

I think this is the critical comment on this thread. If we use the "for the sake of the children" argument, and use it to ban anything that could cause damage to children, we would have surveillance cameras everywhere, everything from kitchen knives through to cars would also be banned, or, better from the child safety point of view, children removed from their parents and brought up by professionals. Obviously .

I mean, if you don't have parents, how can the kids be subject to domestic violence that might harm them? And anyway, where is the bit of paper that certifies that a parent is the right person to bring up kids?

Obviously I'm extrapolating from the absurd to the ridiculous here (well, I hope so), but the point is that if you use a "for the sake of the children" argument then you can use that argument for banning ***anything***.

So why smoking in cars in particular? I would suggest that it is because a large number of pressure groups have worked very hard to make smoking socially unacceptable, most non-smoking adults dislike the smell of tobacco smoke and quite like the idea of banning smoking entirely (basically because they are selfish and don't give a d@mn whether anyone else gets pleasure out of it (1)) and because smoking in cars is easy to target (public place, difficult to hide).

The problem for me is the precedent. If you can, as I said above, use "for the sake of the children" to ban anything, then what's next?

I suspect, going on the media, for example, "next" will be public drinking of alcohol, anywhere. The police will be delerious with happiness, as will the doctors.

After that? who knows. Personally I think that we are losing freedom slice by tiny slice. I don't like that. This particular crusade on the part of media and heath professionals is pressure groups lobbying for a change in the law against what they don't like. I don't like that, because the next pressure group might not like something I enjoy.

And I won't be chuffed if its banned by a knee-jerk reaction populist givernment who does whatever whoever shouts loudest wants.

(1) If they actually came out and said this rather than using the "for the sake of the children argument" then I'd be a lot happier.

In reply to John_Hat:
You trot out some false comparisons, which doesn't help. In what way is having surveillance cameras everywhere banning something? We're not talking about banning knives, we're talking about banning sticking knives in people. We're not talking about banning driving, we're talking banning driving into and over children. Oddly these last two things appear to be the law, which spits on your arguments corpse.

I think people miss this distinction because the connection between passive smoking and the damage it does is not direct. We can see the negative consequences of sticking a knife in someone, or bashing into them with a car, but the space of time between cause and effect in the case of passive smoking and cancer (say) means that people find it easy to dismiss. The notion of responsibility is further eroded by the cumulative nature of the exposure to risk. as Pat keeps saying, "it's just the odd fag".

People are generally very bad at gauging these kinds of risks and acting appropriately. This goes for everyone.

In reply to anonymouse:
Yes.

It's from another survey. It's the % of people who ride horses. If we hold parents responsible for their kids they are presumably responsible for allowing or even encouraging (God forbid) such dangerous activities.

Effectively, yes.Most kids will eat what their parents feed them.

In reply to anonymouse:

No,as he acknowledges, he's reducing to the absurd to make a point. The point remains valid that there are numerous other parental activities which potentially harm children the risk of which could be reduced by government intrusion (whether banning or surveilallance cameras or whatever is not entirely the point).

His concern, which I share, is that increasingly a docile and complacent populace comes to regard State intrusion into their private lives as perfectly right and proper which will serve to encourage more of it by the State.

In reply to Postmanpat:
>

Lol! Could you please tell my kids this!! If this was the case my children would be nutritionally well balanced. As i'm against force feeding my children and gentle persuasion is a slow process, I'm at a loss as to how to get them to eat more veg

In reply to Postmanpat:



This is the point I was trying to make, if not very coherently, in my original post.

In reply to waterbaby:

They will if they feed them junk foods which is why they do so. Should be banned

In reply to Postmanpat:

Ah, but then they'd starve because these people who feed their kids junk, do so because-
They are either, and or
1. Lazy
2. Poorly educated
3. Or unable to cook.

Anyway, I digress.

In reply to anonymouse:

"You trot out some false comparisons, which doesn't help. In what way is having surveillance cameras everywhere banning something? We're not talking about banning knives, we're talking about banning sticking knives in people. We're not talking about banning driving, we're talking banning driving into and over children. Oddly these last two things appear to be the law, which spits on your arguments corpse."

Sorry you missed the entire point I was making. I thought I was being pretty obvious.

The point I was making was about the use of the "for the sake of the children" argument to support increasing regulation and greater intrusion into private freedoms.

Please keep up.

In reply to John_Hat:


I guess it depends on where you draw the lines for abuse of minors (children).

At one time it was deemed appropriate for 7year olds to sweep chimneys, then we found that it increased the risk/caused scrotal cancer. At one time it was legal for 12year olds to have children. At one time it was OK to beat the living daylights out of your child. Banning these was surely infringing on the "rights" of the adults to live their lives as they deemed fit also?

Maybe in a few years time - be it 5, 10 or 50, we'll look back at our age and wonder how in hell we allowed adults to smoke infront of children in a similar way to how we let things go on in days yonder as described above.

In reply to John_Hat:

Perhaps the point you were making was incoherent. Screaming "freedom and rights" is about as productive as screaming "think of the children". I agree with you that the latter isn't a very sensible argument, but neither is the former. By conflating lots of things together under the heading rights and freedom important distinctions do get overlooked. A right to privacy (e.g. surveillance) and the freedom to do something potentially harmful to others (e.g. smoking) are really quite different things.

In reply to anonymouse:

Sheesh.As I pointed out yesterday the issue is how you balance them out(of course they are different things-that's the problem).

If you give people freedom they will inevitably do some harmful things. That is not a justification for abolishing freedom-or maybe you think it is?

In reply to anonymouse:

"A right to privacy (e.g. surveillance) and the freedom to do something potentially harmful to others (e.g. smoking) are really quite different things. "

Yes, and no... it is a continuum. Again, to take a point to the absurd (and please note this) if you lock someone up 24 hours a day chained to a chair unable to move you have total curtailment of freedom, but equally total curtailment of the ability to do harm to others. That person is not harming a fly.

Society has historically taken the view that we give people pretty much total freedom, and then, if they do something, we clobber them hard and *then* take their freedom away.

Over the last few years, we have moved to a position (especially on anti-terrorism) where we are criminalising the propensity to commit crime. i.e. we are curtailing people's freedom in advance of the criminal act which the person concerned has not committed, may never commit, but that the government thinks they will.

If this appears a long way away from smoking in cars, it's actually not. If we criminalise smoking in cars we criminalise the propensity to harm others, regardless of whether any harm is actually inflicted, or regardless (if we are talking a blanket ban) of whether there is actually anyone to harm at all.

This appears a justice system that has got its knickers severly twisted and/or, to use a transport metaphor, put the cart well before the horse. And I don't like it. Strikes at everything I hold dear, etc, etc.

In reply to anonymouse:


Not really. Surveillance is based on the idea that it will prevent harmful things from happening. The fact that it removes the right to privacy is a side-effect.

The smoking ban is also based on the idea that it prevents something harmful from happening. The side effect in its case is that it removes the right to do things we enjoy.

In reply to niggle:
It doesn't really remove privacy, because CCTV cameras are in public places not private places. The give your surroundings a memory, that's all. I don't know what the latest research shows, but early research done in the 90s showed that they don't actually reduce the incidence of crime overall, they shift it. So as a rationale that kind of fell through from the early days. By and large they just seem to make people feel safer, which is a positive end, but one might want to examine why they feel unsafe in the first place. A potential side effect is that the system once in place can be misused. Flattening the discussion to rights vs harm simplifies it to the point where it seems a non-problem, or an insoluble dichotomy.

Framing the discussion like that sidelines the problem that addiction plays in the equation as I mentioned above.

In reply to anonymouse:
Flattening the discussion to rights vs harm simplifies it to the point where it seems a non-problem,
Why?

In reply to Postmanpat:
This is obvious and I don't dispute it (niggle does though). But you don't attempt to balance them out. You trivialise the problem "the odd fag" or compare it to something irrelevant (horse riding) and demand if I want to ban that. These things in no way attempt to explore the balance - merely to load it.

So your shifting the focus again from rights to freedom. We don't have total freedom at the moment. It's not all or nothing. Or maybe you think it is?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Bad choice of words. I meant that some people see it as being about freedom (my freedom at any cost, it's about rights innit?) and others see it as being about harm (think of the children). People just seem really poor at balancing these things out when they are forced into complete opposition.

In reply to anonymouse:

The reason I was minimizing the impact of smoking was to imply the imbalance between the harm it causes and the measures being proposed. If I thought 10% of kids exposed to smoking in cars would die of cancer I would accept this it was worth sacrificing the freedom to smoke in cars.

But if I think that the impact is marginal and has been exaggerated as part of a larger project to outlaw smoking then I think banning it is setting a very nasty precedent (not strictly a precedent because such precedents have already been set)-that we will outlaw things and intrude on peoples' personal spaces not because a crime is being committed but only because we think some harm might possibly be done.

A state that has created 3,000 new crimes and 30,000 new laws in 12 years will not stop here.

In reply to Postmanpat:


ermmm they probably will be stopping in a couple of months.

What are your thoughts on the far more dubious Digital media bill being pushed through at the moment, for items to be concerned about surely the provisions in that are far more concerning?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Then it's not balance. I'm not disagreeing with you here necessarily. I think that banning smoking in cars is just plain weird.

I saw someon picking their nose in their car this morning. They aren't very personal spaces!

This is why I think we need to look carefully at the research for these questions (and why it needs to be robust). We're not talking about something as simple as smoke a tab = kid dies. Imagine if one in every 10000 cigarettes caused the nearest child to explode - no one would smoke. However the situation we have is: smoke a tab -> slight increase in probability that a child dies or otherwise suffers at some point in the future. You can't attribute a death to a particular cigarette so intuition tells you it's fine to smoke it. The same applies to every single cigarette though so the intuition must be wrong.

Mad eh? And ignorance is no defence. I couldn't name 3000 examples of anything (except possibly words and numbers), let alone 3000 different crimes.

In reply to dissonance:
We live in hope. My fear is that if they survive it gives "Napoleon" Balls cart blanche.
?

Do you mean the "Digital economy bill"? Pretty negative but it's surely part and parcel of a trend-that any old goverment jobsworth can get access to our e-mail,internet and telephone records and the Revenue can open our mail without us even knowing abut it (is that feintly Eastern bloc?)

I'm also concerned by the way this bill like others will be rammed through parliament without proper debate ( and they wonder they are not respected) and that the Tories don't try and stop any of this.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Oh f**k, I'd hoped not to get dragged back into this.

There's 2 arguments.

1. Civil rights. PostmanPat has already stated the utalitarian view that if harm to the whole population is over-riding, then that's the winning argument.
2. Is passive smoking harmful to kids.

Now, the 1st argument depends fully on the results of the second ie if exposing children to smoke is harmless, there's no argument for banning it.

PostmanPat's argument is that there are no high quality, randomised control trials proving that passive smoking is bad- therefore civil rights win out.
Taking this logically, there is no "proper" evidence that smoking 5 cigarettes a day in children is harmful - the RCTs have never been done. Threrefore, PostmanPat thinks kids smoking is harmless by that argument.
No RCTs have proven that paedophilia has long term detrimental effects on children, as the RCTs have not been done. Thus, by the same logic PostmanPat thinks that paedophilia is harmless.

The fact that lesser quality studies clearly show harms is being ignored.